Zimmerman/Martin shooting

Hammerdown77 · Apr 13, 2012

rajb123 said:
There have been so many press reports that have said, "[I]Zimmerman was ordered by the police not to follow..." And this is also included in the Florida afidavid which says, "...[when] the police dispatcher realized that Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z not to do that...."

The transcripts of the 911 call, however, indicate that the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that...." and many here could conclude that this statement is not an instruction (e.g., an order) to Z by the 911 dispatcher.

It has also been assumed that Z ignored the dispatcher advice which has yet to be proven. Frankly, we don't know what Z did AFTER this advice from the dispatcher was given... he may have been walking back to his car...

Yep. To me this whole case hinges on what he did after after that statement by the dispatcher. If he continued to pursue Martin and precipitated the confrontation, then the prosecution can use that to show intent. If he stood down and was walking back to his car when "jumped" by Martin, or even just confronted in a hostile manner, then he's got a good argument for being justified in using lethal force once Martin had him on the ground.

Problem is, I don't think either side has any real evidence that shows what happened during that window of time.

Aikibiker · Apr 13, 2012

The Sanford Police Department describes the person Zimmerman talked to as a telecommunications call taker. Not a police officer.

Kleanbore · Apr 13, 2012

What Else Does This Teach Us?

If we can step back from the specifics of Sanford, FL case for a moment and think for a moment about how what we know and what we do not know about such situations may influence things, we can learn something. Consider a hypothetical scenario.

There has been a shooting. One person is deceased; another survives; there may or may not have been earwitnesses or eyewitnesses, but witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The forensic evidence makes it crystal clear who did the deed.

Was it murder of some kind? Manslaughter? An accident? A justifiable homicide?

Which was the culpable party? Were both at fault?

In most cases in which the shooter knows he can be positively identified, he will claim self defense, and because of that, his credibility is unlikely to be readily accepted ("they all say that"). It is the duty of the investigators to piece together fragments of evidence remaining after the fact to assess what likely happened.

There are several things that we can do to reduce the likelihood of being in that kind of situation:

To the extent possible, avoid places where one is likely to face a dangerous confrontation alone.
Stay out of other people's affairs unless we are sworn officers; use the cell phone.
Should a confrontation start to arise, remember ADEE and live by it.
Consider carrying a less-than-lethal instrument.

Should all of that fail, and should any of us be so unfortunate as to end up being forced to shoot someone else, particularly outside of our domicile, we will usually be at some risk. How can we best address the situation at that point?

Do everything possible to avoid using more force than necessary under the circumstances.
Be the first to call.
Try to identify and point out critical evidence and witnesses before they disappear.
Do not make any statements to anyone without the advice of counsel.

On top of all of that, always, always avoid saying, writing, posting, or otherwise indicating anything that could later be used to portray one in a bad light, and in particular, to indicate a possible predisposition toward violence.

Kleanbore · Apr 13, 2012

What can we conclude from this? If a police telecommunication officer gave the instruction, "we do not need you to do that", and he was not a 911 dispatcher (e.g., a police officer), how would that impact this case?

Calls for speculation, and is not likely a material issue.

The City Manager has already made a statement on that. Let's drop it.

Aikibiker · Apr 13, 2012

akibiker said:
"The Sanford Police Department describes the person Zimmerman talked to as a telecommunications call taker. Not a police officer."

What can we conclude from this? If a police telecommunication officer gave the instruction, "we do not need you to do that", and he was not a 911 dispatcher (e.g., a police officer), how would that impact this case?

Per the Sanford pd: "The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow." See the FAQ the SPD put out here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Also in FL 911 dispatchers are not any form of sworn Law Enforcement. They just answer the phone and talk on the radio. They cannot give lawful orders.

GhostlyKarliion · Apr 13, 2012

I was fortunate enough to have a very experienced and successful defense attorney, who deals almost exclusively with deadly force laws, teach the legal portion of our CHL class.

One of the things (there were several) that he said which stuck into my head was this:

"When you have decided that deadly force is necessary the time for talk is over. You need to develop lock-jaw of the palm, when your palm touches your gun, your mouth stays shut until your lawyer tells you to open it. Most of you won't be able to do that. The more you say while you are in shock, the more it will cost you, either in freedom or legal fees."

I have dwelt on this many times and incorporated it into my training regime.

Kleanbore · Apr 13, 2012

Per the Sanford pd: "The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow." See the FAQ the SPD put out here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

No, that statement was made by Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., the City Manager.

Also in FL 911 dispatchers are not any form of sworn Law Enforcement. They just answer the phone and talk on the radio. They cannot give lawful orders.

And that has nothing to do whether the courts will believe that there is probable cause to arrest someone for second degree murder.

LET'S DROP IT.

Loosedhorse · Apr 13, 2012

What Else Does This Teach Us?

If you've already called the police, DON'T HANG UP until you're back in your car, on your way. I imagine that some of this case would be less murky if we had a transcript of the actual Zimmeram-Martin conversation.

He assumed it was "over" as soon as he stopped running. Instead, it was just beginning.

rajb123 · Apr 13, 2012

The information provided on the Sanford Florida police actions by the City Manager (linked above in Post 106) is very informative. I think it is fair to say that the media have largely ignored this - at least in the press reports that I have read.

Is it fair to say that a lot of the information in the City Manager's release seems to have been excluded from the Florida afidavid that the DA filed with the court? If you redacted the names in both narratives, and then read them both, you would not believe they involve the same case; right?

Flintknapper · Apr 13, 2012

What, exactly, depends on his intent?

The idea that he was using “tactics” depends on what his intent was.

You suggest that we are in a “tactical” realm here:

In the tactical realm (where we are here), he had no excuse for leaving the car, IMHO.

I submit that the use of that word in this setting…infers that Z intended to confront Martin in some form and would need to use certain “tactics” (either offensively or defensively) to insure his own safety.

I understand the definition of the word to also include simply carrying out a plan in a prescribed fashion, but the primary meaning (especially in light of this circumstance) is “combative” and I don’t believe that it has been proven that was Z’s intent.

Definition of TACTICAL:

1. of or relating to combat tactics: as

a (1) : of or occurring at the battlefront <a tactical defense> <a tactical first strike> (2) : using or being weapons or forces employed at the battlefront <tactical missiles>

b of an air force : of, relating to, or designed for air attack in close support of friendly ground forces

a : of or relating to tactics: as (1) : of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose (2) : made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view

b : adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose

That is why I say if Z’s only intent was to follow/observe Martin (not confront or crowd him) then there is no reason to believe that any “contact” was expected (or planned), hence no need to think “tactically”.

It’s a dangerous word to throw about IMO.

"Practically" fits better, again...IMO.

Loosedhorse · Apr 13, 2012

I submit that the use of that word in this setting…infers that Z intended to confront Martin in some form

And you are free to do so.

Apparently, you believe that if you exit your car specifically because you believe (as I think Zimmerman did) there is a good probability that a crime is underway or about to be committed, that action should involve no tactical thinking. I disagree. In fact, I'd say anytime you go armed you should be thinking tactically.

b : adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose

Seems a pretty broad definition--I'll go with this one. Otherwise, you seem to be arguing that (unless one is in the military), this entire subforum is mistitled, as I don't plan to be on a battlefield or in the Air Force any time soon.

It’s a dangerous word to throw about IMO.

Ah. Dangerous words. Like I said, sounds like you ought to petition to have this subforum retitled--until then, it would be "dangerous" to post in it.

Kleanbore · Apr 13, 2012

Posted by Flintknapper: The idea that he was using “tactics” depends on what his intent was.

????

That is why I say if Z’s only intent was to follow/observe Martin (not confront or crowd him) then there is no reason to believe that any “contact” was expected (or planned), hence no need to think “tactically”.

One cannot prudently base his or her tactics (or actions, if you prefer) upon intent, expectations, or plans.

I like this description by Tom Givens of the application of Col Cooper's color codes.

I would say that from what has been reported (ie, that Zimmerman was observing Martin specifically), Mr. Zimmerman faced the following kind of situation (excerpts from Givens' discussion of Condition Orange):

... a specific focal point. ... the person who is doing whatever drew your attention to him. .... His actions have caused you to take note of him, so you must assess him as a potential threat,... you begin to focus your attention on this individual that caught your eye, but do not drop your general over-view. You don't want to be blind-sided by his associates. You begin to watch him and assess his intentions, again looking at all of the cues available to you. Nine times out of ten, after a few seconds of observation, you will be able to see an innocuous reason for his behavior and then dismiss him. Once you figure out he's not a threat, dismiss him and de-escalate right back down to Yellow. Who is the tenth one? He is the predator, who would have got you if you had been inattentive. Now that you are aware of him, you are in far less danger.

As you assess this individual, and you see things that convince you he has evil intent, you start to play the "What if…." game in your mind, to begin formulating a basic plan. This is how we get ahead of the power curve. If he acts suddenly, we must have at least a rudimentary plan for dealing with him already in place, so that we can react swiftly enough.

Somewhere, somehow, things went wrong.

It should be crystal clear that had he stayed in the car, none of this would have happened.

Kleanbore · Apr 13, 2012

Posted by Loosedhorse:

What Else Does This Teach Us?

If you've already called the police, DON'T HANG UP until you're back in your car, on your way. I imagine that some of this case would be less murky if we had a transcript of the actual Zimmeram-Martin conversation.

He assumed it was "over" as soon as he stopped running. Instead, it was just beginning.

Good put. We often advise people who report home invasions to stay on the line, for a number of reasons.

Thanks.

Flintknapper · Apr 13, 2012

Apparently, you believe that if you exit your car specifically because you believe (as I think Zimmerman did) there is a good probability that a crime is underway or about to be committed, that action should involve no tactical thinking. I disagree.

Again…..”tactical” infers (in this setting) that Z “intended” to engage/confront Martin…or by his very presence…be at risk of being approached by Martin and expected as much. In which case…he had better have a tactical plan. Do you KNOW or assert that…that was Z’s intent?

In fact, I'd say anytime you go armed you should be thinking tactically.

How so, what it is about being “armed” that demands “tactics” more than being unarmed? Are you saying that the presence of a firearm demands its use? If not….what tactics are needed?

IF Zimmerman had no intent to engage Martin or any reason to believe that Martin would turn on him simply because the two were legally in the same place at the same time, why is it “tactically” a bad move on his part to leave his vehicle?

If Z wanted/needed to know where Martin was (in order to relay it to police)…the only “practical” thing to do was leave the vehicle and follow at a distance.

To say it was a bad “tactic” is to suggest Z had a reasonable expectation things would/could go wrong and that in itself could be damning to his case.

That is why I believe it is a poor word to use…since we do not know Z’s original intent.

ezypikns · Apr 13, 2012

I'm late to the dance, but...........

maybe the most important lesson to learn is that a license to carry a concealed weapon doesn't make you a peace officer.

I (nor does anyone else at this time) don't know exactly what happened, but calling the dispatcher should have been Zimmerman's last act.

And there's nothing wrong with "Stand Your Ground" laws. Too bad Mr. Zimmerman (apparently) had no idea how they applied to him.

Loosedhorse · Apr 13, 2012

Again…..”tactical” infers (in this setting) that Z “intended” to engage/confront Martin

Again, to you it does. To me, it only implies that he intended to exit his car, armed, and enter into an uncertain situation specifically because he suspected that a criminal might be in the immediate vicinity.

what it is about being “armed” that demands “tactics” more than being unarmed?

Higher standard of care.

If you are armed, you might be the only party in a confrontation who knows that the means to turn the confrontation deadly (that is, a deadly weapon or two) are immediately available. Because you know that, but the guy yelling at you doesn't, you should take reasonable and prudent care to make sure you don't have to kill anyone today; that you do your best to avoid that.

That, in my opinion, is good tactics.

any reason to believe that Martin would turn on him

Why would he not assume a criminal might attack him? If he had no suspicion that Martin was a criminal, why did he call the police and get out of his car?

To say it was a bad “tactic” is to suggest Z had a reasonable expectation things would/could go wrong

Almost; yes, I think that Z should have anticipated that things could go wrong.

that in itself could damning to his case.

I can't help that: bad judgment is not usually rewarded, either in the real world (as has already been demonstrated) or in later legal proceedings. However, given the specific statutes in FL, I do not see his bad judgment (in deciding to leave his car, probably because he had not fully considered the consequences) as "damning" to his criminal case.

Wapato · Apr 13, 2012

On the note of tactics, I'm thinking a lesson here could be to call the authoraties and, if as in Zimmerman's case you already have them, leave the phone on.

Or at least get the thing recording, as most phones these days have that function. Because even if you're engaging in ADEE, you may have to prove you were doing so, and that might be hard if you don't have any evidence.

It seems like Zimmerman must have hung up at some point, otherwise they'd have a better recording of the scuffle, and all this trouble might have been avoided, if Zimmerman's version of events is the true one. I suppose it's also possible he hung up because he intended to give the kid a whupping and he just sucks at fistfighting and promptly wound up on the ground getting slammed into the cement.

Actually in the event that the Martin family version is correct, Trayvon's tactical error might well have been in talking to his girlfriend instead of contacting authoraties. Even their version of Zimmerman probably wouldn't have tried anything if he knew Trayvon was on the phone with police.

So I guess on the training side of things, get the police on speed dial, learn how to get your phone recording, and practice using your phone with your off hand.

SSN Vet said:
If this was a "gated community" as reported... and if Martin didn't live there, woud he be considered a tresspasser?

He was a guest of someone there. I suppose it's possible the community requires some sort of paperwork for guests and maybe that hadn't been filled out, but I don't think that makes any difference in this instance.

SSN Vet said:
Have there been a lot of burglary/robberies in this gated community?

It sounds like yes. And Zimmerman had been making a lot of calls to the police, but according to one neighbor he at least stopped one robby at their home in all of that.

SSN Vet said:
Were officers dispatched b4 or after reports of shots fired?

An officer had been dispatched as part of Zimmerman's call. However I doubt they had their lights on or the pedal down on the floor.

JRH6856 · Apr 13, 2012

Given what we know, or can know if we take the time and effort to listen to the police recording of the calls, read the police reports, and compare the times of the calls to the distances to key locations, is that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin before he ended his call to PD and had agreed to meet the responding officers at his truck.

There was plenty of time from the point Zimmerman lost sight of Martin (who was last seen running in the direction of his father's fiancee's town home) to arrive at that town home and be safe inside. Instead, 2 minutes later, he somehow wound up some 70 yards away, and closer to Zimmerman's truck (35 yards) than to his destination.

From the recording, it would appear that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin about the time the operator advised him he didn't need to follow him. At that point, the conversation turned to where Zimmerman would meet the officers. It could be inferred that at this point, Zimmerman assumed that Martin had gotten away since, as he had said, "these ________ always get away."

Zimmerman made an error at this point of assuming the encounter was over and apparently headed back to his truck. Shortly thereafter, the encounter actually began when Martin appeared and asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?"

rajb123 · Apr 13, 2012

I think i read that 6 robberies ocurred at zimmermans apt. Complex in the last month before the shooting.

Would this fact be admissible in court?

Flintknapper · Apr 13, 2012

If you are armed, you might be the only party in a confrontation that knows that the means to turn the confrontation deadly (that is, a deadly weapon or two) are immediately available. Because you know that, but the guy yelling at you doesn't, you should take reasonable and prudent care to make sure you don't have to kill anyone today; that you do your best to avoid that.

Yes, it’s called de-escalation (I know you know) and I agree there is an increased duty to exercise good judgement/manners when “carrying” for the sake of everyone else who does so.

Not because it is any more prudent than when unarmed…but because a “bad shoot” reflects badly upon all whom carry and might eventually result in lost rights.

I don’t believe that falls under the heading of “tactical” however. Prudent, Practical, Wise………yes!

Why would he not assume a criminal might attack him? If he had no suspicion that Martin was a criminal, why did he call the police and get out of his car?

Zimmerman had not observed any definitive “criminal” activity. It is not reasonable to assume that any person you can’t identify is a “criminal”. In the phone tapes…he does not refer to Martin as a “criminal”, he simply states that he believes the person is acting suspiciously (in his estimation).

How do you make the jump from “unknown person” to “criminal”?

Zimmerman had reported other such “activities” in the past…as well as garage doors being left open, unidentified vehicles in the area, etc… He apparently is zealous about his position of neighborhood “watchman/captain”.

I guess I’m a bit old fashioned….but we used call that being a “good neighbor” (reporting reasonably suspicious activity). There wasn’t anything “tactical” about it, the police do that!

JRH6856 · Apr 13, 2012

Zimmerman had not observed any definitive “criminal” activity. It is not reasonable to assume that any person you can’t identify is a “criminal”. In the 911 tapes…he does not refer to Martin as a “criminal”, he simply states that he believes the person is acting suspiciously (in his estimation).

Not only that, but Zimmerman lost sight of Martin when he ran. And from the tape of his PD call, it appears that he left his vehicle at this point to try to keep him in sight but was unsuccessful as the tells the operator, "He ran". At this point, Zimmerman quite likely assumed that Martin had left the complex by the back entrance he had run toward (and which is past Brandy Green's town home where Martin was visiting).

He apparently is zealous about his self-appointed position of neighborhood “watchman”.

Where does this "self appointed" idea come from? The Home Owners Association newsletter identifies Zimmermen as captain of the neighborhood watch and refers new residents with security questions to him. He may have volunteered for the position, but the HOA recognized him as such so he was hardly self-appointed.

9mmepiphany · Apr 13, 2012

A point to consider:

If I were walking at night and thought I was being followed, I would not lead them back to where I was staying. It is the same advice we give folks who think they are being followed in a car...Don't Go Home.

I don't know if I would conceal myself and wait for them to close the distance, confront them...but they do that on TV all the time...and ask why they were following me. But I guess it would be legal...but, not very bright.

I guess under FL's SYG law, I wouldn't have to retreat if the person following me tried to push pass me either. I could even hit them if I thought they were attacking me by advancing.

My take on this is that the turning point for this string of events was Zimmerman leaving his vehicle. Up until then, there is no confrontation that could have occurred that could not have been avoided...there would have been no face-to-face exchange at all

Flintknapper · Apr 13, 2012

M/T wrote:

Where does this "self appointed" idea come from? The Home Owners Association newsletter identifies Zimmermen as captain of the neighborhood watch and refers new residents with security questions to him. He may have volunteered for the position, but the HOA recognized him as such so he was hardly self-appointed.

Further searches reveal you are correct, my mistake.

At the time the homeowners association decided to organize a neighborhood watch, Zimmerman was the only volunteer.(37) He was then chosen as the neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors, according to Wendy Dorival, who organizes Neighborhood Watch for the Sanford Police Department.

The organization is not registered or recognized by NSA, but it doesn't have to be. My misinterpretation. I will correct my post. Thank you for the clarification.

The National Sheriffs’ Association, which runs the Neighborhood Watch Program, said it has “no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program,” NSA executive director Aaron D. Kennard said in a statement.

Note: Previous post edited to correct misinformation.

JRH6856 · Apr 13, 2012

My take on this is that the turning point for this string of events was Zimmerman leaving his vehicle. Up until then, there is no confrontation that could have occurred that could not have been avoided...there would have been no face-to-face exchange at all

Here is an interesting analysis that suggest Zimmerman left his truck not once, but twice.

MuleRyder · Apr 13, 2012

I wonder if Z leaving his vehicle to pursue M would be considered an escalation, and therefore hinder his self defense claims?

I find it interesting how the dynamics can change in a situation like this...how the aggressor can become the victim and the victim becomes the aggressor. And both parties end up losing.

This case really drives home the point how a self defense encounter, while saving your life, can leave you in emotional, financial, and possibly legal ruins.

Zimmerman/Martin shooting

Member

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

member

member

Member

member

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads